Prev: what's a good audio cataloger?
Next: Help with DriveImage XML please.
From: VanguardLH on 14 Oct 2009 16:29
Fairfax wrote:

> I sent various email to my family with megs of pictures from a recent
> family event. It took 3 messages due to the number of pictures
> involved and though they all asked for it, didn't want to choke up
> their webmail account on the receiving end, hence the 3 message
> split.

E-mail is NOT a reliable file transfer mechanism. It wasn't intended or
designed for that. It was designed to send lots of small messages.
There is no CRC check on the file to ensure integrity. There is no
resume to re-retrieve the file if the e-mail download fails. There is
no guarantee the e-mail will arrive uncorrupted. Large e-mails can
generate timeouts and retries due to the delay when anti-virus programs
interrogate their content.

Stop using e-mail to send large files. It is rude to the recipient.
Not every recipient might want your large file. Not every recipient has
high-speed broadband Internet access. Many users still use slow dial-up
access, especially if all they do is e-mail. You waste your e-mail
provider's disk space and their bandwidth to send a huge e-mail. You
waste the e-mail provider's disk space and bandwidth at the recipient's
end. You eat up the disk quota for the recipient's mailbox (which could
render it unusable so further e-mails get rejected due to a full
mailbox). You irritate users still on dial-up that have to wait eons
waiting to download your huge e-mail. Some users have usage quotas
(i.e., so many bytes/month) and you waste it with a file that they may
not want. Stop being rude. Take the large file out of the e-mail.

Save the file in online storage and send the recipient a URL link to the
file. Your e-mail remains small. It is more likely to arrive. It is
more likely to be seen. The recipient can decide whether or not and
when to download your large file. Be polite.

Your ISP probably allows many gigabytes of online storage for personal
web pages. Upload your file there and provide a URL link to it. Other
methods (of using online storage), all free, are:

http://www.adrive.com/ (50GB max quota, 2GB max file size)
http://www.driveway.com/ (500MB max file size)
http://www.filefactory.com/ (300MB max file size)
http://www.megashares.com/ (10GB max file size)
http://www.rapidupload.com/ (300MB max file size)
http://www.sendspace.com/ (300MB max file size)
http://www.spread-it.com/ (500MB max file size)
http://www.transferbigfiles.com/ (1GB max file size)
http://zshare.net/ (500MB max file size)
http://www.zupload.com/ (500MB max file size)

If it is sensitive content and when storing it online in a public
storage area or to guard it against whomever operates the online storage
service, remember to encrypt it.
From: Mike Echo on 14 Oct 2009 18:35
In article <4542c7da071b2cac8ccd63995279f15e(a)aracari.127.0.0.1>,
hummingbírd(a)127.0.0.1 says...

> I use this program all the time for such things:
> http://www.rejetto.com/hfs/?f=dl

Nice one, hb, thanks.

> Check out this example of how it works:
> http://aracari.redirectme.net:8080/Rio%20de%20Janeiro/
>
> You will find 4 images to click on and view.
> These images reside on MY system.

And some beautiful views there, too.

R.

From: Jeffrey Bloss on 15 Oct 2009 10:29
On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 00:06:22 +0100, hummingbird wrote:

> 'Mike Echo' wrote thus:
>
>>In article <4542c7da071b2cac8ccd63995279f15e(a)aracari.127.0.0.1>,
>>hummingb�rd(a)127.0.0.1 says...
>>
>>> I use this program all the time for such things:
>>> http://www.rejetto.com/hfs/?f=dl
>>
>>Nice one, hb, thanks.
>
> A poorly understood program on much of ACF but nevertheless an
> absolute nugget capable of doing things to blow the mind :-)

A nugget, yes, but with a few privacy problems.

https://www.getdropbox.com/features
--
_?_ Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend.
(@ @) Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read.
-oOO-(_)--OOo-------------------------------[ Groucho Marx ]--
grok! Devoted Microsoft User
From: Jeffrey Bloss on 15 Oct 2009 18:13
On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 22:34:01 +0100, hummingbird wrote:

> 'Jeffrey Bloss' wrote thus:
>
>>On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 00:06:22 +0100, hummingbird wrote:
>>
>>> 'Mike Echo' wrote thus:
>>>
>>>>In article <4542c7da071b2cac8ccd63995279f15e(a)aracari.127.0.0.1>,
>>>>hummingb�rd(a)127.0.0.1 says...
>>>>
>>>>> I use this program all the time for such things:
>>>>> http://www.rejetto.com/hfs/?f=dl
>>>>
>>>>Nice one, hb, thanks.
>>>
>>> A poorly understood program on much of ACF but nevertheless an
>>> absolute nugget capable of doing things to blow the mind :-)
>>
>>A nugget, yes, but with a few privacy problems.
>>
>>https://www.getdropbox.com/features
>
> I don't see any similarity between Dropbox and HFS.
>
> Am I missing summat?

"You didn't need to send the image files to them by e-mail" HFS and
Dropbox are two much better ways to allow limited or public access to
files.

> hhmmm. DB seems to be an online file storage/backup facility
> operating in 'the cloud', whereas HFS is a local web file-server.
>
> fwiw: I've had several attempts from people trying to crash HFS
> and/or hack into it...always Chinese ...none succeeded.

Correct, Dropbox is a shares service that includes dozens of additional
features but also has link dropping so you can send a link for access to
a folder or files as you do with HFS.

> And of course I am visited daily by Googlebot and several others
> including the baiduspider and Cyveillance etc etc.
> But all are banned and none get to d/l any file. They go away.
> Not that I keep anything seriously private there anyway.
>
> ISTM that HFS is as secure as HTTP itself is ... and of course
> there's also the SSL option or the F4 option which simply closes
> its connection.

I use HFS/SSL for particular situations PC to PC with no routers in
between, Dropbox for everything else.

> Here's a typical copy/paste from the log tonight which I see
> a lot (I have 100% Chinese IPs banned). I've yet to work out
> what they're trying to do, but they appear to be trying to use
> my server as an HTTP proxy, to get around Chinese Govt controls.
> There's also another one they use: "GET http://wantsfly......"
> ____________________________________________________
>>21:24:04 222.45.112.59:12200{-China-} Connected
>>21:24:04 222.45.112.59:12200{-China-} Disconnected: banned
>>21:42:58 222.45.112.59:4179{-China-} Connected
>>21:42:58 222.45.112.59:4179{-China-} Requested GET http://proxyjudge2.proxyfire.net/fastenv
>>21:42:58 222.45.112.59:4179{-China-} Request dump
>> GET http://proxyjudge2.proxyfire.net/fastenv HTTP/1.1
>> Host: proxyjudge2.proxyfire.net
>> User-Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1)
>> Accept: */*
>> Accept-Language: zh-cn
>> Connection: Keep-Alive
>>21:42:58 222.45.112.59:4179{-China-} Not served: 403 - Deny
>>21:42:58 222.45.112.59:4179{-China-} Disconnected by server: banned - 1873 bytes sent
>
> ____________________________________________________
>
> I won't repeat on ACF what message is contained in the 1873 bytes,
> which is user-definable ;-) LOL.

D00d, let the Chinks have access, all they want to do is deliver some
Kung Pao Chicken.

lol
--
_?_ Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend.
(@ @) Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read.
-oOO-(_)--OOo-------------------------------[ Groucho Marx ]--
grok! Devoted Microsoft User
From: Fairfax on 16 Oct 2009 05:27
On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 15:23:39 -0500, VanguardLH <V(a)nguard.LH> wrote:

>Fairfax wrote:
>
>> VanguardLH wrote:
>>
>>> You might want to review posts in the WLM newsgroup to determine if
>>> you might want to migrate to it as a replacement for OE.
>>
>> Thanks for the info but I tried Windows Mail.
>
>Not Windows Mail. That comes in Windows Vista as its included e-mail
>client. Windows LIVE Mail is what I said. You download it from
>http://download.live.com. The big difference between OE and WLM is that
>WLM keeps the accounts separate instead of rolling them all together.
>In OE, all the POP accounts got rolled together but each IMAP and HTTP
>account got its own message store hence its own branch in the folder
>tree.

[snip]

Yeah, yeah. Got the name wrong but that's the app I meant. Huge dl,
lots of bloat. Went back to my trusty OE6. Thanks, though it's a
been there, done that.

Found Thunderbird solution which works just fine.

Thanks.

First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Prev: what's a good audio cataloger?
Next: Help with DriveImage XML please.